House approves NASA authorization bill

By Jeff Foust on 2014 June 10 at 7:44 am ET

A NASA authorization bill that sailed through the House Science Committee in April passed the full House Monday by nearly a unanimous vote. After a brief floor debate where no members expressed opposition, the House passed HR 4412 on a 401-2 vote, far above the two-thirds threshold needed for passage under suspension of the rules. The two members voting against the bill were Reps. Paul Broun (R-GA) and Mark Sanford (R-SC); neither spoke against the bill on the House floor nor otherwise explained their votes.

During the half-hour floor debate, members of the House Science Committee praised both the bill and the bipartisan aspect of the bill, a far cry from the partisan debate over a previous version last summer. “This act has a come a long ways from its original state nearly a year ago, when the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, of which I serve as ranking member, passed a different version of the bill on a party-line vote, a departure from the committee’s traditional bipartisan approach to NASA,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). “However, much has changed since that time,” she added, thanking the committee leadership for work on the revised bill.

The bill also blocks NASA from spending money on its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) and searches for smaller asteroids that would be targets for the ARM, requiring instead NASA develop a report with detailed cost and schedule estimates for the mission and an explanation of the technologies developed for the ARM that would be suitable for future human missions to the Moon or Mars. “The bill reflects the skepticism that members of the Science Committee and the scientific community have about the Obama Administration’s proposed asteroid retrieval mission,” said committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). “Congress will be better equipped to consider the administration’s proposed missions once we have all the proper information.”

The Senate has yet to take up its version of a NASA authorization bill. At the 30th Space Symposium in Colorado Springs last month, a Senate Commerce Committee staff member said a number of topics were under consideration for their version of an authorization bill, including extending ISS operations beyond 2020 and maintaining competition in the commercial crew program, but gave no timeline for when a bill might be introduced.

62 comments to House approves NASA authorization bill

Though stopping ARM funding may seem like something of a nuisance to SLS and Orion, from the point of view of stopping a potential first mission using these systems, something tells me these programs will actually welcome the move – internally anyway.

In the near term funding being blocked for ARM is advantageous to SLS and Orion, as I believe the funds for this were going to come out of the spaceflight directorate. Now the excuse exists for NASA not spending on ARM, an excuse that can be provided to the White House, as funds freed up eventually will find their way (surprise!) to SLS and Orion. The public version of events will be more like …oh what a downer…now we lack a mission…

Cost and schedule estimates for ARM? How novel. But this administration doesn’t do schedules. I can’t believe that this tone deaf bunch persists with the wacky ARM mission. Enough already. It has no support. Full speed ahead on SLS, and in the coming years with a new Administration, progress on other elements of the lunar mission.

“But this administration doesn’t do schedules. I can’t believe that this tone deaf bunch persists with the wacky ARM mission.”

You’re missing the forest for the trees.

Notice there was resounding support for NOT considering funding any SLS missions? No Republicans demanding that funding be added to NASA’s budget so that SLS-sized missions and payloads can start being developed for 2022 and beyond? That’s only 8 years away, and by next year it will be only 7 years away – and HLV-size payloads will likely take 10 years to develop.

It’s worth noting that, in the interest of an eventual Mars trip, it is accepted understanding that this would be an international effort, using the partnerships established on ISS. But the international community is largely unenthused about ARM. So that’s likely not a strategy that will build and exercise those partnerships. As a result of the unafforability of doing anything else, an ISS extension seems in the cards. If Russia, and perhaps ESA want to bow out of that, they’re conceding the partnerships they’ll need to go to Mars. They know that.

In fact, to the extent international partnerships are going to be required for any ambitious and sustainable BEO activity, the ISS is a powerful resource.

No, if Russia and parts of ESA bow out it does not mean that they, at least in their own strategic thinking, are conceding the partnerships required for Mars.

Russia and China together is a partnership. Maybe not Mars capable today ( nobody is ) but certainly a space power. Tentatively adding France and French Guinea, and you have a completely different kind of international partnership.

It bears to mention that ESA is already engaged in an international Mars project called ExoMars – and they learned the lessons about these alliances.

Furthermore, for any BEO activity, ISS is sort of a neat resource, but it’s ill equipped as a staging post. Russia has at least a token plan of turning their ISS investment into just that, a usable staging post called OPSEK.

I will sort agree generally, with a few exceptions. ExoMars isn’t a human spaceflight mission, so provides virtually none of the partnering foundation that would be needed for an international human mission to Mars. ESA is engaged in loads of international science mission partnerships, as is the US. Our participation in Cassini with them, for example, hardly prepares us for an international collaboration on a human space mission.

As to Russian token plans, everyone has token plans, and they aren’t much more than that. That particular token plan uses ISS elements that haven’t even been delivered yet. So it’s more a token gleam in the eye rather than a plan.

“Can you point us to US version of ISS token plan that does not involve Russia ?”

Not sure why I need to do that. For the U.S. ISS is a profoundly geopolitical tool. Why would we float a token plan that didn’t involve Russia? That might be considered insulting to them. We have plenty of human spaceflight plans that weren’t even quite token that didn’t credibly involve Russia, though. Constellation? ARM? Geez, have we invited the Russians to fly on Orion yet? There are plenty of U.S. industry token plans for using ISS components for BEO activities that don’t involve Russia.

The ISS-without-Zvezda token plan for the U.S. was called the ISM (Interim Control Module), but it was developed as a Shuttle payload. Development was started on it in 1997, but it was never completed. It would need substantial redesign if it were to be implemented.

So if the Russians go ahead with their token plan to undock Zvezda from ISS, we could revitalize our old token plan in response. Plenty of token plans around.

ExoMars isn’t a human spaceflight mission, so provides virtually none of the partnering foundation that would be needed for an international human mission to Mars.

I guess I have to point out that Exo-Mars maybe does provide the ESA with one quite negative lesson anent international partnerships and Mars – don’t trust we Americans. Exo-Mars isn’t a human mission, but as unmanned missions go it’s a pretty big deal. And we bailed on it with virtually no notice in order to pour yet more money into the James Webb Space Telescope. Not exactly the way to win friends and influence people. Not one of NASA’s finer hours in any respect.

“Exo-Mars maybe does provide the ESA with one quite negative lesson anent international partnerships and Mars – don’t trust we Americans.”

Quite right. International participation in science missions doesn’t really quite parallel that in HSF missions, anyway. Our partnerships with Russia on science missions have been miniscule. They are by no means a major player in our science efforts.

Russia and China are not going to be a space power. They have distrusted each other for a millennium. Russian space technology is 20 years behind the U.S., and Chinese space technology is based on 1990s Russian Soyuz technology.

They have nothing to offer each other.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has new robotic cargo ships, will soon have new crew ships, expandable habitats and other robotic technology that no other nation on the Earth could possibly rival.

Russia is toast, and Dmitri Rogozin has only accelerated that.

China sees Russia only as leverage against the U.S., but Russia has nothing to offer and has proven it can’t be trusted as a partner.

That’s a good point that has me really confused. What’s the Russian end-game here? They disconnect from ISS, and they lose partners who connect them with modern aerospace engineering (with all due ITAR caveats). It’s just not clear to me how the Russians can consider pulling out of ISS to be in their technological interest.

“Russia has nothing to offer and has proven it can’t be trusted as a partner.”

Can’t be trusted as a partner to China, I assume you mean. They’ve been a trustworthy ISS partner for the U.S.

“That’s a good point that has me really confused. What’s the Russian end-game here?”

People are confusing Dmitri Rogozin with the Russian space program. The Russian space program doesn’t want to quit the U.S. It’s just Rogozin running his mouth. He’s the deputy prime minister over defense and space; we don’t have an equivalent, but roughly I’d say he’s like a combination of Joe Biden and Bill Nelson.

“Can’t be trusted as a partner to China, I assume you mean. They’ve been a trustworthy ISS partner for the U.S.”

Except Rogozin vaporized our trust in them. Anyone partnering with Russia in the future is going to wonder if Rogozin will get belligerent on them.

We got upset with Russia over Ukraine. China and Russia have fought over border disputes for a thousand years. There’s no trust between them at all.

Russian space technology is 20 years behind the U.S., and Chinese space technology is based on 1990s Russian Soyuz technology.

With all due respect mr Smith, and i mean it as i have read a lot of what you have written here and elsewhere on multiple space subjects, this is a grossly uninformed statement.

The fact that US national security launches rely on basically the worlds best launcher engine sourced from Russia ( with another launcher borrowing engines that Russians discarded ) and Chinese are operating a highly advanced robot on the moon shows superficially how wrong you are here, not even going into the details.

“The fact that US national security launches rely on basically the worlds best launcher engine sourced from Russia ( with another launcher borrowing engines that Russians discarded ) and Chinese are operating a highly advanced robot on the moon shows superficially how wrong you are here, not even going into the details.”

I’ll try some details. The fact that US national security does this is because U.S. legacy aerospace was too cheap to develop their own engine for that class of launcher. Russia was our friend, and their engines were REALLY cheap. So we designed rockets specifically around those engines. Had little to do with technological superiority (though maybe programmatically, our legacy aerospace companies shot themselves in the foot). And the Chinese? Holy cow. We’re operating a vastly more sophisticated robot on Mars, that has actually lasted more than a month. Google X prize is aiming at privately funded rovers on the Moon. More than 30 teams are in competition. Yeah, the Chinese ought to get some of that incentive based Google X prize money.

“US has never matched Russian ORSC engine performance in a real engine.”

There are many metrics for performance. Actually, the very new Merlin engines, in terms of operational simplicity, are in many respects superior to the RD-180s. In thrust to weight ratio, the 1D knocks it out of the park, relative to RD-180. That’s just for RP1/LOX.

“You realize that the only team with an actual launch booked and lander is from Spain, riding on Chinese rocket on a lander borrowed by Chinese lunar probe ?”

I’m with ya. But you realize that we were talking about rovers, no? There are many launchers that can get these rovers to the Moon, and what it takes is bucks to buy them. That’s “b” as in buck, and not “t” as in technology.

Let’s talk some more about Mars. What’s the Russian track record looking like for Mars, eh? We’ve put four rovers on that planet. They can barely even get into orbit.

No patriotism being espoused here. The Russians and Chinese have solid programs, but they are a decade or two behind what we have. The RD-180 sure is incredibly good, if you’re trying to fit it into an Atlas V. Nothing else incredibly good that will fit, that’s for sure.

The fact that US national security launches rely on basically the worlds best launcher engine sourced from Russia ( with another launcher borrowing engines that Russians discarded ) and Chinese are operating a highly advanced robot on the moon shows superficially how wrong you are here, not even going into the details.>>

Rather silly. The US series of robots on Mars lasted far long then the Reds robot on the Moon which seems to have accomplished not a great deal. As for engines, that was a decision made by the aerospace companies for the same reason that Walmat buys shirts made in Bangladesh…they are cheap. And US products are to expensive at least when made by the SIC

As for the Russian and Chinese human spacecraft. The Russians are at least 40 years maybe 30 years behind DRagon rider and the Chinese have done a “classic” version of the Russian stuff.

The Chinese are worse actually, they have shown no ability to innovate in design, just innovate in copying. Not impressed. RGO

Agree that a Russo-Chinese space combine isn’t an especially scary prospect. China is proceeding in space lentimento while SpaceX and other American commercial outfits are proceeding <andante. Should both trends continue, U.S. commercial space will zip right by the Chinese with barely time to wave. I don’t see how Russia throwing in with them is likely to materially advance the very deliberate pace taken by the Chinese.

For its part, if Russia is actually serious about splitting off their bits of ISS after 2020 and building them out into a super-Mir, it’s probably within their technical capability to do and the Chinese might find it useful to help. But Russia could be in much more economically unfavorable shape by 2020 than at present. Not obvious they can afford the new big-bucks space spending program they recently announced. By 2020 they might be happier to take an ISS buy-out than play Solomon-and-the-baby with the thing.

Russia is toast, and Dmitri Rogozin has only accelerated that.

Rogozin isn’t being helpful to Russia’s long-term prospects, in space or elsewhere, but Putin is, after all, his boss, so credit where it’s due. Long-term, Russia is evaporating at a rate of a million or more people per year as ultra-low birthrates and declining life expectancy take their toll. As Russia loses market share in space launch and weapons exports, it’s left with being a non-Middle Eastern petro-state. Single-resource economies are not notable for long-term economic or political stability.

Stephen…it all of course depends on how you define things. If one defines “space power” as a country that spends money in space on human spaceflight irregardless value of the results…well that is the definition of space power now.

On the other hand if you define “space power” as a nation that spends money on human spaceflight expecting something of value to the nation greater then the investment…only the US is on its way to that “undiscovered country”

What human spaceflight has been since its start is mainly a PR effort…now that effort is classed in various feel good terms…and SLS/Orion is the latest manifestation of that in the US…but in the end take away all the eyewash and unlike say Aviation, human spaceflight is a cost not profit center.

The first nation to change that will be the first world space power. Hope you are well Robert G. Oler

Not that difficult. The ISS is already predominately American. The only functions NASA can’t perform are crew exchange / lifeboat duty — Commercial Crew is fixing that — and orbital reboost / CMG desaturation. The US Propulsion Module would have fixed that but was cancelled shortly after Russia actually launched the Service Module. It could easily be resurrected.

NASA building a propulsion module is much more likely than either Russia, China, Japan, or Europe building their own station, either together or separately.

So basically, apart from being able to keep itself on orbit and getting crews up and down from it, USOS would be fine on its own.
Also, US Interim Control Module never got to any reasonable stage of hardware, and the basic required technologies like pumping hydrazine around on orbit has never been done by US at any relevant scale. Coming up with a docking ring that actually mates to Zarya is another small challenge.
Considering that there is about five years left and no actual plan or funding for this, yeah, not that difficult

“Also, US Interim Control Module never got to any reasonable stage of hardware”

Incorrect. It was completed and placed into storage. More importantly, the permanent replacement got to PDR before it was cancelled because it was not needed.

Are you really claiming that the United States is unable to build a propulsion module in six years and is thus forever dependent on other countries for their space stations? Space stations that don’t even exist?

A Titan Launch Dispenser ( TLD ) modified to be launched on Shuttle is not a control module.
And yes, i have doubts that the traditional US aerospace industry under NASA “leadership” has the ability to do much of anything in 5 and a half years ( tick tock ). Resolving the contract protests will take longer than that.

No, because “superior” is a childish and vague value assessment in this context.
In some ways, Shenzou is a more practical design than ISS, even just because it is not required to be manned at all times. Also, it doesnt require hideously expensive space truck to be assembled. Facilities offered by ISS are obviously more diverse and offer capabilities that Shenzou cannot hope to have. Are the solar panels and radiators more efficient on Shenzou ? I dont know, i dont think anyone outside Beijng does.

Just the same as Chang’e-3/Yutu carried some components and technologies that individually taken are ahead of the US equivalents that have flown. Which does not mean that Chinese spacecraft are “superior”.

“Chang’e-3/Yutu carried some components and technologies that individually taken are ahead of the US equivalents that have flown”

What exactly would those be? I’d be interested to know. Of course, to the extent they were lunar rover-specific components and technologies, and we’ve never done a lunar rover, that’s an easy kind of exceptionalism to achieve. Sort of straw-man exceptionalism.

“In some ways, Shenzou is a more practical design than ISS, even just because it is not required to be manned at all times.”

Shenzhou is the transit vehicle. So it’s a bit cockeyed to be comparing it to ISS. I think you mean Tiangong.

As to practicality of design, that has nothing to do with technological or engineering superiority. That has to do with what was available when the original ISS design was conceived, and management decisions about how ISS was going to be used.

The decision was that Tiangong was not going to be used a lot. So it made for some programmatic practicality to design it so that it didn’t need to be occupied. Duh.

What hideously expensive space truck are we talking about here? You mean Shuttle? The political dynamics were that we wanted a cool, winged, manned spacecraft/truck to lead us into space and, er, inspire future generations. We built it. When we decided to build ISS, it made some sense to use the truck we had to build it. Shuttle needed a mission (as SLS desperately gropes for now). But construction of a large space station did not “require” such a hideously expensive space truck.

What exactly would those be? I’d be interested to know. Of course, to the extent they were lunar rover-specific components and technologies

If you are actually interested, why dont you do your research then ? For one, Chang’e-3 flew a visual and radar based autonomous landing hazard detection system, akin to ALHAT that was just ground-tested in US a few weeks ago. Something that NASA eventually wants to integrate on next mars landers, to finally get rid of the big landing ellipse uncertainty and enable new mission capabilities.

“If you are actually interested, why dont you do your research then ?”

I think I just did. Thank you!

“For one, Chang’e-3 flew a visual and radar based autonomous landing hazard detection system, akin to ALHAT that was just ground-tested in US a few weeks ago. Something that NASA eventually wants to integrate on next mars landers, to finally get rid of the big landing ellipse uncertainty and enable new mission capabilities.”

So I’m glad to hear they flew this hazard detection system. Did it work? Did it make the lander avoid hazards? From the LRO imagery and the images that have come back from Chang’e-3, the terrain doesn’t look particularly dangerous.

Now, landing on Mars is quite different than landing on the Moon. Landing targeting on Mars is highly dependent on the circumstances of the atmosphere interface. That’s difficult to predict with precision. It’s not quite yet about recognizing features and going where you want to go. Once you’re under the chute, for example, you pretty much go where the breeze takes you. That’s where the landing ellipse comes from. We pretty much selected the location for that ellipse where our orbital assets gave us some confidence about the lack of hazards. China may not have had such confidence for the Chang’e-3 landing site on the Moon, with their rather poor 7m resolution complete imaging, and that’s probably why they felt they needed to fly a hazard avoidance system. You can get in a lot of trouble in a pixel that big.

Of course, MSL has a nice onboard hazard avoidance system that it has just started using for autonomous roving. This system builds on the successful VTT and GESTALT systems that flew with the MERs. No, it’s not ALHAT, because the “L” in ALHAT is “landing”.

Yes, Chang’e-3 shows that the Chinese are “players”, along with several other nations, but I just don’t see enabling innovations that would make them look like technological contemporaries.

So I’m glad to hear they flew this hazard detection system. Did it work? Did it make the lander avoid hazards? From the LRO imagery and the images that have come back from Chang’e-3, the terrain doesn’t look particularly dangerous.

Yes it did work, well enough. Your research isn’t really thorough. And it was dangerous enough, as CE-3 set down very close to a crater.

China may not have had such confidence for the Chang’e-3 landing site on the Moon, with their rather poor 7m resolution complete imaging,

Chang’e-2 map remains the highest resolution lunar global map to date. LRO narrow angle images are much sharper but do not cover the complete sphere, and CE-3 did high resolution narrow angle imaging of the landing area as well. The data and images have been released, too, ask ILOA.

CE-3 is a “modern” spacecraft in every respect – which is obvious to anyone actually bothering to look.

As in, Chang’e-3 didn’t crash? Or did it actually negotiate around hazards? Is your research thorough enough to be able to glean that? References, please. No question that hazard avoidance system “flew”. Did it really do anything?

Ask ILOA? Goodness. No, I won’t ask them. Those are the guys who want to put an astronomical telescope on the Moon for doing science, when astronomers have long ago rejected that idea as being a credible plan compared to an in-space observatory. Yes, they have their mini-UV telescope there, on CE-3, which isn’t doing any new science, but is just taking pretty pictures (“exclusive images”, Steve Durst proudly calls them).

No one is saying that CE-3 isn’t a “modern” spacecraft. Just that there are many nations that have the capability to make spacecraft with modern accoutrements.

It’ll be interesting as to whether or not China can turn their talk into actual international agreements wrt their proposed space station. Talks cheap, international agreements are going to be a lot more costly.
Cheers.

“It stays up without astronauts crawling over it all the time fixing coolant leaks ?”

Yes, just like the active cooling systems on oodles of communication, reconnaissance, and science spacecraft. No need to have astronauts crawling all over them. Gosh, the Chinese figured it out! Gold medal for them.

Crawling over ISS all the time? You mean like the three EVAs four years ago to fix cooling loop A? Or maybe the inspection and pump replacement EVA last year? When you have people up there that depend on it, you do the jobs that need to be done.

By the way, ISS would “stay up” if they didn’t do those EVAs. You’re reaching …

Now, the NRC panel did strongly recommend that the U.S. relax it’s hands-off attitude to the Chinese. That’s smart, because partnerships with technologically capable countries have a net advantage in lowering costs. The Chinese have certainly demonstrated that they are technically capable.

Name me a ground based lab that DOESN’T have maintence crews crawling all over them. From changing light bulbs to fixing the AC, and the entire mirade of equipment that is in constant need of repairs, upgrades, and routine maintance.

The idea that we are going to build structures in space that does not need any maintence is beyond silly. Can you imagine the costs associated with a lab that will never ever require any maintence at all?

that is a pretty silly arguement that a lab doesn’t have maintence ALWAYS crawling around in, on, and under them.

“No, unmanned ISS would come down in an uncontrolled way in short order.”

According to NASA’s space station program manager Mike Suffredini, even if NASA evacuates the space station, it can be operated remotely, but at the cost of potential risks of losing it.
from International Business Times

In fact, NASA ISS risk assessments say there is a 10% chance of losing the station within six months if astronauts needed to evacuate it. The chance does go up significantly over longer periods after evacuation. If the departure of astronauts is anticipated and well planned, there are a number of strategies that could mitigate that risk, however.

So yes, the risk is higher without humans on board, but your short order doesn’t sound to be very short.

As to ISS needing human maintenance, yes, it was designed that way. It could have been designed not to need it, at a price.

I’m not discussing the actual hardware. I’m discussing the international agreements that are going to be needed between China and it’s prespective partners. Hardware’s easy relative to the political agreements required to create the partnerships.
Cheers.

Now that the NRC report justifies terminating of NASA HSF, panic is going to set in, and hence ISS will get another look at longer life span.

$2B a year to say ‘we have human space flight program’ is worth it to many on the hill. But spending anymore on ‘development’ of systems to go BEO, as the NRC report states is required, at a rate that exceeds inflation, is not acceptable.

It should be pointed out that, unlike most NASA Authorization bills, which cover three years of appropriations, this bill is (somewhat oddly) just for FY2014, so perhaps just has retroactive relevance. In any case, it’s not obvious that it’s necessarily all that meaningful for FY15 and beyond. There’s probably some good reason for doing that, but it eludes me.

Nice column. But the fact remains the US can’t put humans in orbit while both China and Russia can.
It’s not technical barriers holding us back, it’s political barriers.
If Senator Shelby’s language holds in the Senate CJS FY2015 funding bill (under Title III), commercial progress for all but Boeing CST-100 may be significantly delayed or halted entirely.
It’s not just the FAR requirements added to NASA contracts under the SAA, it’s requirement that testing be conducted at NASA facilities potentially operated under the eyes of competing contractors. Every effort is being made to create disincentives and barriers for SpaceX, Orbital and SNC to conduct business with the USG, business that belongs to the ULA family monopoly.

“It’s not technical barriers holding us back, it’s political barriers.”

That’s correct, but I think there are serious rationale barriers as well. Our nation is simply not as motivated to put humans in orbit as it used to be. The dreaded “gap” is upon us, and Congress, which ensured that gap would happen by disincentivizing commercial carriers, is content to be exasperated. Fingers will wag and fists will pound, and voters will see mounds of exasperation. They are mostly exasperated because of what we’re getting charged to put our astronauts in orbit, and less that we can’t do it ourselves. But at some level, Congress has put us in this position because we really can’t see a lot of national value in doing it ourselves. I’m sorry, but it’s up to Congress to be sensitive to national value in establishing priorities, and that’s just the way it’s fallen out. For Congress, our ticket to space is Orion and SLS, and it’s a really pricey ticket. You’d think that, by lofting our own astronauts, the price per astronaut lifted would go down. Ain’t gonna happen with Orion/SLS.

Note that your column is very light on actual, you know, hardware that has been to space. Also, it would be interesting to know what exactly are you trying to refute there – your own claim that “Chinese and Russians are 20 years behind the US” ?

Nice column. But the fact remains the US can’t put humans in orbit while both China and Russia can.

Another fact remains … The U.S. controls the communications, electronics and power on the ISS. Russia can’t come or go without the U.S.

If not for the temporary use of Soyuz for transport, the Russians would have no customers except for celebrities who want a joyride. Their aerospace industry would be all but moribund.

Ten years ago, the U.S. made a deliberate policy decision to take a timeout post-Shuttle to retool for new programs. What those programs would be has morphed over the years, after Constellation fell flat on its face, but commercial crew set it right.

The U.S. had to take one step aside so it could make another giant leap for humanity. I’m cool with it.